<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Court Upholds Detention Order in Diesel Smuggling Case; Claims of Language Barrier and Delayed Execution Dismissed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76846</link>
    <description>Detention Order under COFEPOSA - legal heirs of detenu - Smuggling - diesel oil of foreign origin - The High Court addressed the challenge against a detention order issued under COFEPOSA, wherein the petitioner sought to quash the order on various grounds. These grounds included the detenu&#039;s alleged lack of English proficiency, delay in execution, non-application of mind by the detaining authority, and inadequate provision of requested documents. The court examined each contention and found them to be unsubstantiated. It concluded that the detenu&#039;s endorsement in English, previous affidavit in English, and his evasion of arrest contributed to the delay in execution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 06:29:01 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 06:29:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Upholds Detention Order in Diesel Smuggling Case; Claims of Language Barrier and Delayed Execution Dismissed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76846</link>
      <description>Detention Order under COFEPOSA - legal heirs of detenu - Smuggling - diesel oil of foreign origin - The High Court addressed the challenge against a detention order issued under COFEPOSA, wherein the petitioner sought to quash the order on various grounds. These grounds included the detenu&#039;s alleged lack of English proficiency, delay in execution, non-application of mind by the detaining authority, and inadequate provision of requested documents. The court examined each contention and found them to be unsubstantiated. It concluded that the detenu&#039;s endorsement in English, previous affidavit in English, and his evasion of arrest contributed to the delay in execution.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 06:29:01 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>